w.i.p. Flight Model Overperformance

[nikoel]

2 hours ago, HWasp said:

Please, don't start this nonsense about the paddle, it changes the G-limit, and that's it.

It can be accounted for by drawing the 7.5G limit on the chart, as shown before, that's it, no magic involved.

That being said, I'll probably end up uploading some tracks during the weekend, and I'll.do it without the paddle.

I'm much more interested if that 23 dps for the 50% fuel F-16 claim by Hulkbust44 will hold up or is it complete bs...

Hmmm… I have a theory how he got 23

Got the turn part right; sustained, not so much 

 

Edited June 26, 2024 by nikoel

[HWasp]

1 hour ago, nikoel said:

Hmmm… I have a theory how he got 23

Got the turn part right; sustained, not so much 

 

 

I'd put some money on that...

I've seen some incredible "tests" by very vocal people on this forum before, my current favorite is one, where the temperature was set to 41 degrees Celsius to prove that the F-18 STR is lower than the F-16s... 

Edited June 26, 2024 by HWasp

[darkman222]

Why is it always that STR is investigated and questioned. Nobody seriously doing guns only dogfighting just sits at perfect rate speed and waits 1500 degrees to score a win although you start to see losing cues, to get shot down after 3 circles. It is drag and energy retention up to rate speed again that often makes a win or a lose.

In the F18 you'd just bleed your airspeed, because you gain it back while you still point your nose at the bandit all the time. How is that measured and compared to real life jet performance?

 

[Exorcet]

1 minute ago, darkman222 said:

Why is it always that STR is investigated and questioned. Nobody seriously doing guns only dogfighting just sits at perfect rate speed and waits 1500 degrees to score a win although you start to see losing cues, to get shot down after 3 circles. It is drag and energy retention up to rate speed again that often makes a win or a lose.

In the F18 you'd just bleed your airspeed, because you gain it back while you still point your nose at the bandit all the time. How is that measured and compared to real life jet performance?

 

It's all related. Sustained turns are just PS=0. PS +/- are the cases where you're storing or trading energy, but they're related to PS=0. Sustained turns aren't everything, but they should be correct.

[Kefa]

Since turn data on the EPE -402 Hornet is scant, then again, as it is for the -400 A model or basically any Hornet.   Check out this break turn of a F-18C.  Granted it's at the end of the demo, so he is low on fuel; with probably only ~2000lbs in the tank.  So the jet is technically lighter than normal. 

Notice the HUD has 7.5G at mach .59  in the turn with him easily maintaining (i.e. 'sustaining') 7.3-7.5G throughout nearly all 180 degrees of turn.  Again, he is flying runway heading (upwind) and turning crosswind and then to downwind,  so he turns about 180 degrees in his HUD.  I am guessing if he had 50% internal fuel he would need a little more airspeed probably to mach .6 or .61  to maintain 7.5G as it seems he is hitting the limiter at that speed.  That generates a turn rate of a little over 20dps, which is in line with the GAO document if you re-estimate the EPE Hornet's 19.2dps  for 50% internal fuel and no stores.  

 

Another performance clue: the GAO paper gives 699fps of specific excess power at 10,000ft, 1G, mach .9  see pg 83.  Very interesting for a comparison to the other teens.

Edited June 26, 2024 by Kefa

[Hulkbust44]

On 6/26/2024 at 7:10 AM, HWasp said:

Please, don't start this nonsense about the paddle, it changes the G-limit, and that's it.

It can be accounted for by drawing the 7.5G limit on the chart, as shown before, that's it, no magic involved.

That being said, I'll probably end up uploading some tracks during the weekend, and I'll.do it without the paddle.

I'm much more interested if that 23 dps for the 50% fuel F-16 claim by Hulkbust44 will hold up or is it complete bs...

That is not what I said. I said 22-23 as a range. As it is with the speed here. This was me simply jumping in the 1v1 instant action, firing the missiles and going to the deck. Point stands that it makes the OP look like BS. 
 

Tacview-20240625-201553-DCS-F-16C - Caucasus - 1v1 OBFM.zip.acmi

Since it would absolutely kill any of you to even attempt to do any tests, here you go.
Pylons and clean, both jets ~500msl, 15C, Caucuses, 50% fuel 
Target KCAS of 360 and 440
Significant changes in rate when they get to low fuel.

 

STR18.trk Tacview-20240627-125005-DCS-STR18.zip STR16.trk Tacview-20240627-124321-DCS-STR16.zip

[Hulkbust44]

On 6/26/2024 at 5:46 AM, nikoel said:

Interesting question. Interesting because the chart does show this. All you have to do is run up to the 7.5G line. I have done this for you here:

 

That right there being your solution proves you are wholly unqualified to be discussing this. If you knew anything or bothered to test, you would know that the Hornet cannot achieve a sustained turn speeds at 7.5G, not without being too fast and using the paddle.

~ .55 mach and ~7.0G is where you'll be getting best rate. 

[HWasp]

55 minutes ago, Hulkbust44 said:

That right there being your solution proves you are wholly unqualified to be discussing this. If you knew anything or bothered to test, you would know that the Hornet cannot achieve a sustained turn speeds at 7.5G, not without being too fast and using the paddle.

~ .55 mach and ~7.0G is where you'll be getting best rate. 

This is getting really, really interesting, I can't wait to get home to see all this for myself. 

Shame that my flight got cancelled... 

[wilbur81]

4 hours ago, Hulkbust44 said:

Tacview-20240625-201553-DCS-F-16C - Caucasus - 1v1 OBFM.zip.acmi 666.42 kB · 0 downloads

Since it would absolutely kill any of you to even attempt to do any tests, here you go.
Pylons and clean, both jets ~500msl, 15C, Caucuses, 50% fuel 
Target KCAS of 360 and 440
Significant changes in rate when they get to low fuel.

STR18.trk 3.95 MB · 0 downloads Tacview-20240627-125005-DCS-STR18.zip 178.53 kB · 2 downloads STR16.trk 1.59 MB · 0 downloads Tacview-20240627-124321-DCS-STR16.zip 99.23 kB · 2 downloads

Good tests... Looked at both the Tacviews (for both jets) and they seem to align well with the blk50 / lot20 real world "vault anecdote" from the earlier post. Thanks, Hulkbust. 

Edited June 27, 2024 by wilbur81

[darkman222]

So this is the millionth time people flew circles for Tacview and look at the STR and say, wow now I know why I could not win. I just could not sit here at STR and wait for the bandit to slide into my HUD. But STR is only a part of how good a jet is.

What about drag, drag at high AOA, energy retention, thrust to weight ratio? If you bleed down your energy and regain it quicker than the bandit, that is what makes the difference at comparable STR.

For the guys being around here longer. Remember the first flight model the F16 was released with? There was never something wrong with STR. But once you bled down your energy, you literally could not get it back when exceeding 3G at slow speeds at high AOA. So you were stuck at low speed or you'd have to completely unload and fly straight and level, which is not desirable in a dogfight. Once that drag was adjusted, the DCS F16 instantly became a better dogfighter. Without changing anything at the STR. What that proves is that only STR is not an indicator how good a flight model is. If something else is off, the STR can be spot on and it just means not much in terms of over all jet performance.

Edited June 27, 2024 by darkman222

[HWasp]

1 hour ago, darkman222 said:

So this is the millionth time people flew circles for Tacview and look at the STR and say, wow now I know why I could not win. I just could not sit here at STR and wait for the bandit to slide into my HUD. But STR is only a part of how good a jet is.

What about drag, drag at high AOA, energy retention, thrust to weight ratio? If you bleed down your energy and regain it quicker than the bandit, that is what makes the difference at comparable STR.

For the guys being around here longer. Remember the first flight model the F16 was released with? There was never something wrong with STR. But once you bled down your energy, you literally could not get it back when exceeding 3G at slow speeds at high AOA. So you were stuck at low speed or you'd have to completely unload and fly straight and level, which is not desirable in a dogfight. Once that drag was adjusted, the DCS F16 instantly became a better dogfighter. Without changing anything at the STR. What that proves is that only STR is not an indicator how good a flight model is. If something else is off, the STR can be spot on and it just means not much in terms of over all jet performance.

 

You have valid points, but as you can see here, even the most simple stuff, flying the plane around in circles at constant speed causes all kinds of disagreements, so let's not mix in the complex stuff just yet.

[nikoel]

14 hours ago, Hulkbust44 said:

That right there being your solution proves you are wholly unqualified to be discussing this. If you knew anything or bothered to test, you would know that the Hornet cannot achieve a sustained turn speeds at 7.5G, not without being too fast and using the paddle.

~ .55 mach and ~7.0G is where you'll be getting best rate. 

I’m going to put this into ‘you might not understand what context this answer was made in’ rather than, what you have accused of. For your information my real life job directly makes me qualified to read these graphs - what we are discussing with these graphs are not real life, it’s DCS world

Now on to the context - I was answering a question in regards to the graph made by contactlight

Cab’s question/request was in regards to the use of paddle.

We know from the manual that 7.5G is the maximum G’s that the pilot can command

All I did was a draw a green and red line outlining that everything below and to the left of that curve for that specific graph was within “non-paddle” parameters 

if you have a problem with what the graph says you’re welcome to take it up with contactlight - I haven’t touched it or altered it

Edited June 28, 2024 by nikoel

[BIGNEWY]

Just now, nikoel said:

I’m going to put this into ‘you might not understand what context this answer was made in’ rather than, what you have accused of. For your information my real life job directly makes me qualified to read these graphs - what we are discussing with these graphs are not real life, it’s DCS world

Now on to the context - I was answering a question in regards to the graph made by contactlight

This user’s question was in regards to the use of paddle.

We know from the manual that 7.5G is the maximum G’s that the pilot can command

All I did was a draw a green and red line outlining that everything below and to the left of that curve for that specific graph was within “non-paddle” parameters 

if you have a problem with what the graph says you’re welcome to take it up with contactlight - I haven’t touched it or altered it

please add the track replays used to produce your chart. 

thank you

[nikoel]

Just now, BIGNEWY said:

please add the track replays used to produce your chart. 

thank you

They were not made by me Newy. 

They were made by @contactlight - only he can comment on them directly and give you the replays that he may or may not have

I do not have any affiliation with him, only mutual respect for the work he puts in and knowledge that his graphs are respected by the users of mob’s dogfighting server

[BIGNEWY]

11 minutes ago, nikoel said:

They were not made by me Newy. 

They were made by @contactlight - only he can comment on them directly and give you the replays that he may or may not have

I do not have any affiliation with him, only mutual respect for the work he puts in and knowledge that his graphs are respected by the users of mob’s dogfighting server

no problem, but please understand we have lots of people making claims about flight models on many aircraft in DCS so we have to be sure to check the method of how the test was done and any public evidence used for the test before we would even entertain a tweak based on the data presented, of course we have a lot of data ourselves and test often to ensure it is within parameters. With that said we are always looking to improve flight models in DCS.  

thank you 

[nikoel]

Duplicate post

Edited June 28, 2024 by nikoel

[HWasp]

16 hours ago, Hulkbust44 said:

That right there being your solution proves you are wholly unqualified to be discussing this. If you knew anything or bothered to test, you would know that the Hornet cannot achieve a sustained turn speeds at 7.5G, not without being too fast and using the paddle.

~ .55 mach and ~7.0G is where you'll be getting best rate. 

 

Ok, so I didn't want to react to this BS before I could actually demonstrate it, so here you go: F-18 (50%) happily sitting right on the limiter between 7,4 and 7,5 G doing 390 sustained. For an extended period.

You can't just make stuff up based on what you can or can't do. Is it practical in BFM or is better to target 360 instead? Now that is your choice, but when flying tests vs charts, that is not how it works.

(BTW the actual max STR will be around 385 for this weight, because being right at limiter is already decreasing performance a little bit.)

 

F_18_7_5_STR_390_1.trk Tacview-20240628-115721-DCS-F_18_7_5_STR_390_1.trk.zip.acmi

[nikoel]

  

17 hours ago, Hulkbust44 said:

That is not what I said. I said 22-23 as a range. As it is with the speed here. This was me simply jumping in the 1v1 instant action, firing the missiles and going to the deck. Point stands that it makes the OP look like BS. 
 

Tacview-20240625-201553-DCS-F-16C - Caucasus - 1v1 OBFM.zip.acmi 666.42 kB · 4 downloads

Since it would absolutely kill any of you to even attempt to do any tests, here you go.
Pylons and clean, both jets ~500msl, 15C, Caucuses, 50% fuel 
Target KCAS of 360 and 440
Significant changes in rate when they get to low fuel.

 

STR18.trk 3.95 MB · 2 downloads Tacview-20240627-125005-DCS-STR18.zip 178.53 kB · 6 downloads STR16.trk 1.59 MB · 4 downloads Tacview-20240627-124321-DCS-STR16.zip 99.23 kB · 6 downloads

 

Not in front of my main DCS computer, but I had a look at the Tacview
Now you did achieve 22-23' but then had to ease off to 18-19' to regain energy. Your average was, somewhere just north of 20' / second

Additionally, when fuel quantity is being normalised it's not done by %, lb's is better, but actual endurance is best

Otherwise aircraft with large fuel tanks, and efficient engines are penalised and ones with smaller tanks and thirstier engines given an advantage. For instance the F/A-18 has an internal fuel capacity of just under 11,000lbs, whilst the 16 is in the realm of 7,000lbs internally

This is why on the aircraft have been fuel loaded for 5-6min on the dogfights server. This is important for your "data" because this is a double whammy - the F-16 consumes more fuel than the F/A-18 so for equal endurance in burner it needs more fuel and  then additionally for the same percentage of fuel, it physically carries less

All you have proven is that if you make the hornet heavier and the viper lighter their performance converges

At least you didn't make it +50 outside

Edited June 28, 2024 by nikoel

[HWasp]

On 6/26/2024 at 2:31 AM, Hulkbust44 said:

>Viper would not exist and have the reputation it does if this is the case in the real world. 

And that's what this all comes down too, it always does. "Viper best dogfighter because it is" "I was told it's the best turner" "Hornet is WRONG"


Now the chart you present has no helpful data whatsoever, and you go around making statements based on it... 
What was the aircraft stores configuration for these tests? density altitude? Fuel? G loads? Were these even the 402 motors? 

I just did a quick test in DCS and you've been spouting nonsense. 

Clean jets (with pylons)
Caucuses, standard day, deck, ~50-60% fuel
max sustained rates:
Hornet 21dps at @ 360-365 KCAS
Viper 22-23dps @ 440-450 KCAS

Looks like DCS is perfectly in line with wilbur81's information.

 

 

Let's continue with this:

So, first of all, the best rate speed for the viper at this weight is not at 450, but I did the test there because, that is what you claimed.

A big problem with your tests is, that you don't have unlimited fuel, so basically only your first turn is valid (as weight decreases rapidly as you know) and of course your speed varies way to much.

 

So the fact is, the Viper is not between 22 and 23 dps, but it is between 20 and 21 dps (around 20,5) for that speed and weight. (Of course all tests done at 15C)

 

Your speed control is inaccurate, the weight is not constant and you are measuring with an inacurrate tool (that tacview table), so that's invalid.

As you can see, in my test speed is held within +/-10 kts to the target at worst and +/-5kts most of the time.

Tacview-20240628-123234-DCS-F_16_STR_450_1.trk.zip.acmi F_16_STR_450_1.trk

Edited June 28, 2024 by HWasp

[HWasp]

Contactlight's F-16 chart for 83% fuel max STR is accurate for clean aircraft at 15 C (as expected)

My STR is slightly higher, just above 19dps, because limiter allows 9,3G in this condition, so that is what I used.

If that is the equal AB time fuel vs the 50% F-18, then the Hornet will have the STR advantage clearly throughout the fight. (Yes, without the damned paddle, 7,5G limit!!!)

 

I hope, we can finally put an end to this debate about obvious facts, because it is really annoying.

 

F_16_STR_83%_M08_1.trk Tacview-20240628-130547-DCS-F_16_STR_83%_M08_1.trk.zip.acmi

Edited June 28, 2024 by HWasp

[nikoel]

9 minutes ago, HWasp said:

Contactlight's F-16 chart for 83% fuel max STR is accurate for clean aircraft at 15 C (as expected)

My STR is slightly higher, just above 19dps, because limiter allows 9,3G in this condition, so that is what I used.

If that is the equal AB time fuel vs the 50% F-18, then the Hornet will have the STR advantage clearly throughout the fight. (Yes, without the damned paddle, 7,5G limit!!!)

 

I hope, we can finally put an end to this debate about obvious facts, because it is really annoying.

 

F_16_STR_83%_M08_1.trk 936.19 kB · 0 downloads Tacview-20240628-130547-DCS-F_16_STR_83%_M08_1.trk.zip.acmi 48.12 kB · 0 downloads

 

@BIGNEWY - @HWasp has provided the track data that correspond to the graphs. All credit to him

I wanted to double check that you also got the GAO document with the performance data in the previous page 

Edited June 28, 2024 by nikoel

[BIGNEWY]

Thank you 

we will take a look as time allows, as mentioned by vader we are still tweaking the flight model where required, so look out for future changes that may affect the results here.

 

[Cab]

2 hours ago, HWasp said:

 

Ok, so I didn't want to react to this BS before I could actually demonstrate it, so here you go: F-18 (50%) happily sitting right on the limiter between 7,4 and 7,5 G doing 390 sustained. For an extended period.

You can't just make stuff up based on what you can or can't do. Is it practical in BFM or is better to target 360 instead? Now that is your choice, but when flying tests vs charts, that is not how it works.

(BTW the actual max STR will be around 385 for this weight, because being right at limiter is already decreasing performance a little bit.)

 

F_18_7_5_STR_390_1.trk 996.97 kB · 1 download Tacview-20240628-115721-DCS-F_18_7_5_STR_390_1.trk.zip.acmi 39.77 kB · 2 downloads

Thanks for taking the time to do that. What STR did you get for the Hornet?

[HWasp]

30 minutes ago, Cab said:

Thanks for taking the time to do that. What STR did you get for the Hornet?

No problem. STR is a close to 21 dps in that test.

Edited June 28, 2024 by HWasp

[Figaro9]

Oh boy, what a mess.

Nikoel started this topic / bug report. With an EM Sketch which cannot be verified due to lack of very basic information.
In the meantime, this chart seems to have disappeared. How do you think this should be verified?

And then he came up with cl’s em-chart. Do they proof the edf18 fm wrong? Nope. It doesn’t even compare edf18 to rw f18.

Others chimed in, some telling nonsense. 
HWasp finally confirmed with accurate tests that the edf18 and edf16 do have a max str within 0.5dps under same conditions at sl. Kind of proofing the withdrawn op em-sketch wrong… kind of confirming wilbur.

It is going to be hard to verify, even more change the fm based on that i guess.

Edited June 28, 2024 by Figaro9